Yet another testimony, albeit not as "first hand" as my recent discovery.
As for Fred's refinement of his arguments, that is fine. No intent to misrepresent on my part - merely a quick summary as I remembered the 3 arguments.
I see failings with the reverse markings on the silver chains, but to me, there are two logical and possible explanations:
1) They are fraudulent 2) They are real, and something else must account for their "slop appeal."
Given the evidence in support of these daggers, I believe that conclusion #2 is the best explanation, and I am fine not knowing the answer "why" #2 is true. One could ask the same question "why" about any number of anomalies and mysteries that hobby experience has shown are not as we would like them to be, but nonetheless are associated with real pieces. Use your imagination, and you'll come up with your own examples of "unanswered questions" about real artifacts. I commend Fred for being the first to notice that the markings on the back of silver-chain examples were lacking in quality and execution.
I have no issues with the signatures, as it's known that no two signatures are exactly alike, and the Hunlein signature on the blade is close enough to other signatures of Hunlein, all of which differ from each other to some degree. However, the most compelling argument was made by an associate. In order to believe the account that these are fraudulent, you have to believe the following:
Someone many decades ago, taking a box of original SA Honor Daggers, hatched a worldwide conspiracy to sprinkle them around the world, with strict orders that they would come out of the woodwork under the most natural circumstances, with often NO profit motif. This is not likely.
